The internet is a difficult place for a precise person. Twitter is like the rest of the internet times a billion. You get rapid flow of "information" combined with a 140 character limit. This does not lend itself to precision.
In response to a lovely libertarian tweet slamming academia and claiming private innovation is the driver behind technological progress I responded:
"'The largest innovations in tech...come from the private sector.' Wrong. The private sector monetizes the academic discoveries.Ugh"
Now, that isn't exactly precise. It could easily be taken that I am saying no innovation comes from the private sector. This would obviously be an absurd statement on my part and would be completely inaccurate instead of a simple broad generalization.
Then you get the the response:
"like the lightbulb, telephone, internet, tablets, MP3 players, smart cars??? Please. Provide some examples"
The precise person inside of me is screaming to engage this person. To enlighten them a bit and encourage them to expand their knowledge and clarify I was not stating that that no innovation comes from the private sector. A brief perusal of their twitter feed showed me this would be a wasted effort as they are a gamergate supporter. There is no discussing with those fools.
Instead, I'll do it here.
We're going to throw out the telephone & the light bulb. I'm going to make an assumption and believe the tweeter thinks Edison invented the light bulb. He did not. He "perfected" the light bulb so it could be monetized. However, universities in the 19th century were very different than universities in the 20th & 21st centuries.
So, the internet. The internet got its start at DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. This is not a private company. In fact it, much like NASA and many other government research arms are far closer to evil academia than they are to private companies. So, the government invented the internet. Have many private companies improved on it? Yes! Have many monetized it? Yes! Did they "invent" it? No.
Tablets. Tablets are merely small touchscreen computers. Obviously the tweeter is a blithering idiot as they're essentially more complex versions of MP3 players (also small computers. I'm amazed he didn't throw in smart phones, lets just name different versions of the same thing.)
Computers have been around for a couple hundred years, but modern ones did get started with lots of private work. Transistor based computers (the ones we use today) use transistors developed at Bell Labs. A private research facility that came out of Alexander Bell's Volta Labs and was run heavily by AT&T it developed a whole lot of stuff.
But back to tablets. Which have touchscreens. Which were invented, by accident, in an academic lab. By someone who also worked at Oak Ridge National Labs. So, MP3 players & tablets were about the worst computer examples they could pick.
Smart cars. Where to even begin? How do they not see this is the monetization phase of technology that's been developed in all sorts of places. You have AI, you have video technology, sensor technology, I mean, nobody was just in a lab anywhere and discovered a freaking smart car! (or a computer, or a tablet, or a well, most anything really, that's not how science works.)
All of which plays into the point, the guy had no clue what he is talking about. But there is no engaging people like that. Which is sad and frustrating.
There are many, many examples of scientific progress coming from the private sector. But that's not what the private sector exists to do for the most part. (We are seeing a resurgence to a degree it seems.) The private sector exists to figure out how to use abstract scientific discoveries and turn them into something concrete it can package and sell.
There is nothing wrong with that but merely stating "Private companies created the smart car" does little do disprove my initial, if imprecise point.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Sunday, April 19, 2015
The Shed
So, you need a little extra storage space outside. You think, "Hey, one of those 10x8 metal sheds would be perfect, they don't cost a lot either!"
You purchase the shed and wrestle it home, still thinking this is going to be a great project.
You happily level the ground for the shed's home and build a good solid foundation for it out of some nice pressure treated lumber and exterior plywood.
You then start to build the shed. Four hours into the process you regret every decision you made up to that point.
My wife and I are going to be tearing down our garage to build a new one. We needed somewhere to store our outside stuff while this was going on and we settled on a metal Arrow 10x8 shed.
It looks a lot like this:
I read some reviews online about the sheds and it seemed they were fairly sturdy and not overly hard to build, it just takes time.
Well, yes, it does take time. A whole lot of time. And it takes a lot of twisting of a screwdriver, a WHOLE lot of twisting of a screwdriver.
I started working on the shed at about 10:00 in the morning. I began putting the base together after wrestling the pieces outside. Things moved fairly smoothly at this point. My wife got home from the gym and came out to help. It was only about 12:45 when we got to the point in the instructions that should have tipped us off: "Do not continue past this point unless you have many hours to finish the job."
PFFFFFFT. How hard could it be? It wasn't even 1 yet. We forged ahead. By the 100th tiny screw you have to install I was starting to regret our decision on purchasing the shed.
The problem wasn't so much the screws, or the bolts, or the washers, its that there are about 500 or so of them all told. Oh, and you can't really use a drill to install them as they are tiny and you often have to fight to line up the holes so they'll go together. And they're tiny.
We forged ahead, our decisions getting worse and our speed slowing as time drug on. Mistakes were made. (What are the chances of installing all three roof braces upside down? Getting better all the time!) Tempers flared as we both tired.
Finally around 7 we finished. Oh, we weren't done. No no no! We merely got to a point where we could stop and it wouldn't fall down or blow away overnight.
Today I spent another 5 hours finishing it up.
It was a horrible process but a great learning experience. Next time I'll either just build a shed from scratch with lumber or buy a pre-fab'd shed and have it dropped in place. Either option will be superior to installing a million little screws one at a time with their little washers and GAH!!!!!
On the positive side it seems fairly sturdy and since it's been raining all day there appear to be no leaks in the roof.
All told it has about 40 combined man-hours of work in it though I'd say 3 of that was just due to general tiredness the first day.
Here it sits. Lurking.
You purchase the shed and wrestle it home, still thinking this is going to be a great project.
You happily level the ground for the shed's home and build a good solid foundation for it out of some nice pressure treated lumber and exterior plywood.
You then start to build the shed. Four hours into the process you regret every decision you made up to that point.
It looks a lot like this:
Well, yes, it does take time. A whole lot of time. And it takes a lot of twisting of a screwdriver, a WHOLE lot of twisting of a screwdriver.
I started working on the shed at about 10:00 in the morning. I began putting the base together after wrestling the pieces outside. Things moved fairly smoothly at this point. My wife got home from the gym and came out to help. It was only about 12:45 when we got to the point in the instructions that should have tipped us off: "Do not continue past this point unless you have many hours to finish the job."
PFFFFFFT. How hard could it be? It wasn't even 1 yet. We forged ahead. By the 100th tiny screw you have to install I was starting to regret our decision on purchasing the shed.
The problem wasn't so much the screws, or the bolts, or the washers, its that there are about 500 or so of them all told. Oh, and you can't really use a drill to install them as they are tiny and you often have to fight to line up the holes so they'll go together. And they're tiny.
We forged ahead, our decisions getting worse and our speed slowing as time drug on. Mistakes were made. (What are the chances of installing all three roof braces upside down? Getting better all the time!) Tempers flared as we both tired.
Finally around 7 we finished. Oh, we weren't done. No no no! We merely got to a point where we could stop and it wouldn't fall down or blow away overnight.
Today I spent another 5 hours finishing it up.
It was a horrible process but a great learning experience. Next time I'll either just build a shed from scratch with lumber or buy a pre-fab'd shed and have it dropped in place. Either option will be superior to installing a million little screws one at a time with their little washers and GAH!!!!!
On the positive side it seems fairly sturdy and since it's been raining all day there appear to be no leaks in the roof.
All told it has about 40 combined man-hours of work in it though I'd say 3 of that was just due to general tiredness the first day.
Here it sits. Lurking.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
So, this time it'll make a difference.
Well, another police officer has been caught on camera gunning down an unarmed black man. This time, the man was obviously running from the officer who shoots him 8 times in the back as he runs away.
The officer then calls for backup from the body he has just handcuffed, because he's obviously a threat. Oh, the officer then tosses a taser by the body. I can't say "plants" but why are you throwing a taser next to the handcuffed body of a man you just shot in the back 8 times? Oh, and then accused of attempting to take said taser from you which is why you feared for your life and had to shoot him.
Why did this start? Drug dealing? Robbery? Or a busted tail light? If you guessed C, you would be correct.
I'd love to claim that THIS will be the one that changes people's minds. That wakes them up that there is a problem with cops killing black men, especially unarmed black men, for minor offenses.
But it won't be. Why? Because upper and middle class whites are going to believe the police when they smear this guy. They've been trained to believe from little on up that the police are the good guys (and many are) and for them, for WHITE people the police are! For too many blacks they are not.
Chris Rock the prominent comedian has started posting instagram pics every time he is pulled over. A black man driving a nice car. I'm sure he was driving all over the road.
Not all cops are bad cops. In fact, few cops are truly bad. Its the culture of cops that is toxic. Its the culture that was going to cover up this crime, for it is a crime, until the video surfaced. Its the culture that turns otherwise good men and women into accessories to murder, theft, rape, and assault.
Look at the NYPD study on complaints of police brutality. A small percentage of cops made up a giant proportion of the complaints! Instead of "re-training" theses criminals again and again, kick them off the force and insure they cannot work in a police or security facility again. Many people aren't cut out to be cops and a lot of them are not because they are too timid, its because they have a criminal mindset themselves.
I grieve for the family of Walter Scott and I can only pray that justice is served. But I'm not naive enough to believe its going to change anything. Sadly.
The officer then calls for backup from the body he has just handcuffed, because he's obviously a threat. Oh, the officer then tosses a taser by the body. I can't say "plants" but why are you throwing a taser next to the handcuffed body of a man you just shot in the back 8 times? Oh, and then accused of attempting to take said taser from you which is why you feared for your life and had to shoot him.
Why did this start? Drug dealing? Robbery? Or a busted tail light? If you guessed C, you would be correct.
I'd love to claim that THIS will be the one that changes people's minds. That wakes them up that there is a problem with cops killing black men, especially unarmed black men, for minor offenses.
But it won't be. Why? Because upper and middle class whites are going to believe the police when they smear this guy. They've been trained to believe from little on up that the police are the good guys (and many are) and for them, for WHITE people the police are! For too many blacks they are not.
Chris Rock the prominent comedian has started posting instagram pics every time he is pulled over. A black man driving a nice car. I'm sure he was driving all over the road.
Not all cops are bad cops. In fact, few cops are truly bad. Its the culture of cops that is toxic. Its the culture that was going to cover up this crime, for it is a crime, until the video surfaced. Its the culture that turns otherwise good men and women into accessories to murder, theft, rape, and assault.
Look at the NYPD study on complaints of police brutality. A small percentage of cops made up a giant proportion of the complaints! Instead of "re-training" theses criminals again and again, kick them off the force and insure they cannot work in a police or security facility again. Many people aren't cut out to be cops and a lot of them are not because they are too timid, its because they have a criminal mindset themselves.
I grieve for the family of Walter Scott and I can only pray that justice is served. But I'm not naive enough to believe its going to change anything. Sadly.
Why are certain "sins" more "sinful?"
The current furor over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act raises all sorts of questions. First might be, what Religious Freedom's need restored? Another might be why all the fancy language to just say "We want to legalize discrimination."
Apparently certain vocal minorities of Christians feel that they should be able to have their cake and eat it too. Now look, I get it, we all love cake, but here's the thing, when you start a business, you don't instantly get to choose your customers. I work a job that has some retail aspects. Trust me, I wish I could choose my customers.
But, you start a business, a public business, you don't just get to say "Well, I only sell to Y." See, they used to do that in the South, and heck, even in many Northern places. It was discrimination then, its discrimination now whether its because of skin color or sexual orientation or the color of their eyes.
"BUT MAH BELIEFS!" you cry, railing that baking a cake, making a pizza, or selling flowers to "the gays" is somehow an affront to God (pro tip: its not) and you think you shouldn't have to go against your beliefs. YOU are special. YOU have beliefs unlike others. (Or something, I'm sorry, I don't really get the logic, but whatever I'm about to destroy it anyway.)
Here's the problem: Why is homosexuality apparently the "worst" sin? I mean, if you have a business you've sold to adulterers, fornicators, the greedy, liars, thieves, wife beaters, and child abusers. You've done transactions with people involved in pretty much every sin out there. I mean, your customers, they're human, they sorta have flaws. Just like YOU have flaws. Just like I do.
So, why are homosexuals somehow the worst? Because you know about their "sin?" That by having a transaction with them you somehow tacitly approve of their "lifestyle?" They're your customer. They're giving you money for your service. That's where it begins and ends.
I suppose the excuse "But I KNOW about their sin!" still exists. But again, it doesn't make any sense. Why is obvious "sin" worse than hidden sin? One could argue hidden sin is actually worse for a whole bunch of reasons.
But basically the issue boils down to this: If you don't want to do business with people whose lifestyles you don't agree with, don't own a business. Be someone else's employee and let them worry about the "moral" implications of their sales.
You can approach this from another angle too. Why would you not want to serve these people and do the best job possible? Show that you love them as you love anyone? What does building walls do to help show God's love? Or, is the real issue you only believe God's love really applies to those who think like you?
Apparently certain vocal minorities of Christians feel that they should be able to have their cake and eat it too. Now look, I get it, we all love cake, but here's the thing, when you start a business, you don't instantly get to choose your customers. I work a job that has some retail aspects. Trust me, I wish I could choose my customers.
But, you start a business, a public business, you don't just get to say "Well, I only sell to Y." See, they used to do that in the South, and heck, even in many Northern places. It was discrimination then, its discrimination now whether its because of skin color or sexual orientation or the color of their eyes.
"BUT MAH BELIEFS!" you cry, railing that baking a cake, making a pizza, or selling flowers to "the gays" is somehow an affront to God (pro tip: its not) and you think you shouldn't have to go against your beliefs. YOU are special. YOU have beliefs unlike others. (Or something, I'm sorry, I don't really get the logic, but whatever I'm about to destroy it anyway.)
Here's the problem: Why is homosexuality apparently the "worst" sin? I mean, if you have a business you've sold to adulterers, fornicators, the greedy, liars, thieves, wife beaters, and child abusers. You've done transactions with people involved in pretty much every sin out there. I mean, your customers, they're human, they sorta have flaws. Just like YOU have flaws. Just like I do.
So, why are homosexuals somehow the worst? Because you know about their "sin?" That by having a transaction with them you somehow tacitly approve of their "lifestyle?" They're your customer. They're giving you money for your service. That's where it begins and ends.
I suppose the excuse "But I KNOW about their sin!" still exists. But again, it doesn't make any sense. Why is obvious "sin" worse than hidden sin? One could argue hidden sin is actually worse for a whole bunch of reasons.
But basically the issue boils down to this: If you don't want to do business with people whose lifestyles you don't agree with, don't own a business. Be someone else's employee and let them worry about the "moral" implications of their sales.
You can approach this from another angle too. Why would you not want to serve these people and do the best job possible? Show that you love them as you love anyone? What does building walls do to help show God's love? Or, is the real issue you only believe God's love really applies to those who think like you?
Sunday, August 17, 2014
His name was Michael Brown
I spent last Wednesday, August 13, 2014, glued to my computer. Scrolling across my twitter feed were the stories coming from Ferguson, MO. I was watching live video, not from some giant news corporation, because none of them had crews there (the locals did, but their footage, if it existed was not making its way to the national coverage) but of people actually on the ground as a heavily armed and armored police force tear-gassed its way through a residential neighborhood. Imploring protesters to "Go home, this is no longer a peaceful protest!" all while firing stun grenades, tear gas, flares, rubber bullets and having the piercing shriek of an LRAD blasting in the background.
I read in real time as two reporters were arrested for not leaving a McDonalds quickly enough, and then after the Police Chief found out, quickly being let go. I saw the reporters of Al-Jazeera flee their camera equipment as a tear gas canister exploded near them. I read the eye-witness reports of people saying officers pointing that camera to the ground.
A local reporter spoke live on camera of her fear as police searched the media vans, military rifles in hand, and suggested it was time for the media to leave as the police couldn't vouch for their safety.
I've since followed various narratives on the story since. The brief day of mostly calm on Thursday as the thugs of the St. Louis County Police were pulled out and the Missouri Highway Patrol, under the command of native son, Capt. Ron Johnson took over.
I watched and read with disgust on Friday as the Ferguson Police finally released the name of the officer who shot Michael Brown while simultaneously releasing video of what appears to be Brown robbing a convenience store minutes before he was shot.
Then, hours later mentioning, oh, the officer in question had no knowledge of the robbery so that had nothing to do with Brown's death.
I've watched and been sickened by so much racist vitriol, both blatant and carefully camouflaged has been spewed about the looting that happened the day Brown was killed. Mostly ignoring all arrested for looting had come into Ferguson from out of town. There has since been a bit of looting, but the images of the citizens of Ferguson, standing guard outside the stores to stop looting are poignant. These people LIVE there. They don't want to steal from neighbors or destroy their property. There is a criminal element anywhere and they are always opportunistic. Seeing regular folks standing up to thugs both with a badge and without is heartening.
What is disheartening is another unarmed black man is dead. I'm not certain what happened on August 9th. All I know is an unarmed 18 year old black man was lying dead on the pavement over thirty feet from the police car where the initial shot was fired. All I know is his body lay on the pavement for over 4 hours as they "processed the scene." All I know is that it took a week for them to even release the name of the officer involved. All I know is the police response was akin to what I would expect in Moscow, only I believe the Russians could actually have executed it in a professional manner.
The Michael Brown case brings so many issues to light yet again. Race issues. Police issues. Political issues. If I can bring myself to write about some of those I will. Right now, my heart breaks for the family of Michael Brown.
And my heart breaks for Darren Wilson, who has to live with the fact he shot an unarmed man to death. He apparently felt justified in the moment, but someone is dead because of his actions and that person didn't even have a weapon. Maybe Wilson is some racist monster, but I think more likely he a fairly regular officer for Ferguson, though, read some of the articles on that and you might be appalled.
I'll stop for the moment with this: If you were more concerned by the limited looting that occured over a week of protests than you are that an 18 year old man had his life cut short for little apparent reason, then you probably need to take a good hard look at your values.
I read in real time as two reporters were arrested for not leaving a McDonalds quickly enough, and then after the Police Chief found out, quickly being let go. I saw the reporters of Al-Jazeera flee their camera equipment as a tear gas canister exploded near them. I read the eye-witness reports of people saying officers pointing that camera to the ground.
A local reporter spoke live on camera of her fear as police searched the media vans, military rifles in hand, and suggested it was time for the media to leave as the police couldn't vouch for their safety.
I've since followed various narratives on the story since. The brief day of mostly calm on Thursday as the thugs of the St. Louis County Police were pulled out and the Missouri Highway Patrol, under the command of native son, Capt. Ron Johnson took over.
I watched and read with disgust on Friday as the Ferguson Police finally released the name of the officer who shot Michael Brown while simultaneously releasing video of what appears to be Brown robbing a convenience store minutes before he was shot.
Then, hours later mentioning, oh, the officer in question had no knowledge of the robbery so that had nothing to do with Brown's death.
I've watched and been sickened by so much racist vitriol, both blatant and carefully camouflaged has been spewed about the looting that happened the day Brown was killed. Mostly ignoring all arrested for looting had come into Ferguson from out of town. There has since been a bit of looting, but the images of the citizens of Ferguson, standing guard outside the stores to stop looting are poignant. These people LIVE there. They don't want to steal from neighbors or destroy their property. There is a criminal element anywhere and they are always opportunistic. Seeing regular folks standing up to thugs both with a badge and without is heartening.
What is disheartening is another unarmed black man is dead. I'm not certain what happened on August 9th. All I know is an unarmed 18 year old black man was lying dead on the pavement over thirty feet from the police car where the initial shot was fired. All I know is his body lay on the pavement for over 4 hours as they "processed the scene." All I know is that it took a week for them to even release the name of the officer involved. All I know is the police response was akin to what I would expect in Moscow, only I believe the Russians could actually have executed it in a professional manner.
The Michael Brown case brings so many issues to light yet again. Race issues. Police issues. Political issues. If I can bring myself to write about some of those I will. Right now, my heart breaks for the family of Michael Brown.
And my heart breaks for Darren Wilson, who has to live with the fact he shot an unarmed man to death. He apparently felt justified in the moment, but someone is dead because of his actions and that person didn't even have a weapon. Maybe Wilson is some racist monster, but I think more likely he a fairly regular officer for Ferguson, though, read some of the articles on that and you might be appalled.
I'll stop for the moment with this: If you were more concerned by the limited looting that occured over a week of protests than you are that an 18 year old man had his life cut short for little apparent reason, then you probably need to take a good hard look at your values.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Its Official, Stop Saying they're Conservative.
Thanks to the McCutcheon decision by the SCotUS yesterday we officially became an oligarchy. Now, you might say with cases like Citizens United we've been headed towards this for a few years and you'd be right.
However, those brilliant minds at the Supreme Court have stripped all campaign finance limits. A single donaor can pump as much directly to campaigns as they want. No more arbitrary $100k limit. Nothing.
The "conservatives" claim this will not lead to bribery as there needs to be proof of bribery. Apparently they live in a bubble. Bribery happens DAILY in Congress and in politics around the country. Its the horse-trading that goes on by lobbyists. Its the cushy multiple six figure jobs waiting for ex-Congressional members. Its how members of Congress become millionaires while in office working a job that pays well, but shouldn't make them multi-millionaires.
So, is it bribery in the sense of "I give you 50k cash you vote X way?" Nope. Is it bribery all the same? Yes.
Overturning decades of legal precedent the "conservative" justices decided that free and fair elections are not important to a democracy. The rights of a few super-rich are more important than the lives and rights of the hundreds of millions of American who are not super-rich.
They are not conservative. They are every bit as activist as the most liberal judges have been and have done more in the last decade to destroy the health of America for the average American than was done in 50 years of liberal courts.
They can also stop pretending about being "originalists." Scalia and Thomas are two of the most bought members of the court. Their precious Founding Fathers and Constitution are apparently a joke as they make ruling after ruling creating a new nobility, a nobility of wealth.
However, those brilliant minds at the Supreme Court have stripped all campaign finance limits. A single donaor can pump as much directly to campaigns as they want. No more arbitrary $100k limit. Nothing.
The "conservatives" claim this will not lead to bribery as there needs to be proof of bribery. Apparently they live in a bubble. Bribery happens DAILY in Congress and in politics around the country. Its the horse-trading that goes on by lobbyists. Its the cushy multiple six figure jobs waiting for ex-Congressional members. Its how members of Congress become millionaires while in office working a job that pays well, but shouldn't make them multi-millionaires.
So, is it bribery in the sense of "I give you 50k cash you vote X way?" Nope. Is it bribery all the same? Yes.
Overturning decades of legal precedent the "conservative" justices decided that free and fair elections are not important to a democracy. The rights of a few super-rich are more important than the lives and rights of the hundreds of millions of American who are not super-rich.
They are not conservative. They are every bit as activist as the most liberal judges have been and have done more in the last decade to destroy the health of America for the average American than was done in 50 years of liberal courts.
They can also stop pretending about being "originalists." Scalia and Thomas are two of the most bought members of the court. Their precious Founding Fathers and Constitution are apparently a joke as they make ruling after ruling creating a new nobility, a nobility of wealth.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
What a joke
So, its no surprise to any living, breathing American that our government officials and private corporations are far too cozy.
Republicans might be the most egregious offenders, but Democrats work hard to keep pace. After all, how else could Rahm Emmanuel leave his job in the Clinton administration and get a job that paid him millions at a bank, with absolutely no banking experience?
Merely the latest in a steady stream of politicians cum lobbyists is the now-former FCC Commissioner Attwell Baker. She is leaving her position to join Comcast's lobbying group based in Washington DC.
Nice, so the person who previously was in charge of regulating companies like Comcast, now works on their behalf pressuring congress and presumably whoever takes her old position.
I'd love to just rail away at Ms. Baker for being a person with no principles, and to a degree I feel that way. But why attack one person? The entire system is so hilariously broken its not even funny.
We have ex-Congressmen and staffers stepping into jobs at the companies they passed legislation in favor of. We have countless government employees, both appointees, and rank and file who leave their government jobs to then lobby the very people who took their place. We have ex-military getting hired by arms companies and "security" companies to cajole their still in service pals to buy their new weapon or hire their mercenaries, er, contractors to help defend the next "humanitarian" mission.
As if it isn't bad enough that corporations can now donate with impunity to elections we allow those who make policy decisions to step away from their jobs and instantly step into their counterparts role.
Our government needs moratorium periods on certain workers before they can take certain jobs. If you want to leave your post to go run a college, or a company, ok. But if you are leaving your post to take a job where your sole purpose is to use your insider information to unduly influence a decision in your new employer's favor? I'm sorry, you'd need to wait at least 2 years MINIMUM before doing that. I'd prefer a waiting period of 5 years.
Go get a real job for a bit. Actually produce something possibly. Or, am I asking too much out of the money machine that is federal politics?
Republicans might be the most egregious offenders, but Democrats work hard to keep pace. After all, how else could Rahm Emmanuel leave his job in the Clinton administration and get a job that paid him millions at a bank, with absolutely no banking experience?
Merely the latest in a steady stream of politicians cum lobbyists is the now-former FCC Commissioner Attwell Baker. She is leaving her position to join Comcast's lobbying group based in Washington DC.
Nice, so the person who previously was in charge of regulating companies like Comcast, now works on their behalf pressuring congress and presumably whoever takes her old position.
I'd love to just rail away at Ms. Baker for being a person with no principles, and to a degree I feel that way. But why attack one person? The entire system is so hilariously broken its not even funny.
We have ex-Congressmen and staffers stepping into jobs at the companies they passed legislation in favor of. We have countless government employees, both appointees, and rank and file who leave their government jobs to then lobby the very people who took their place. We have ex-military getting hired by arms companies and "security" companies to cajole their still in service pals to buy their new weapon or hire their mercenaries, er, contractors to help defend the next "humanitarian" mission.
As if it isn't bad enough that corporations can now donate with impunity to elections we allow those who make policy decisions to step away from their jobs and instantly step into their counterparts role.
Our government needs moratorium periods on certain workers before they can take certain jobs. If you want to leave your post to go run a college, or a company, ok. But if you are leaving your post to take a job where your sole purpose is to use your insider information to unduly influence a decision in your new employer's favor? I'm sorry, you'd need to wait at least 2 years MINIMUM before doing that. I'd prefer a waiting period of 5 years.
Go get a real job for a bit. Actually produce something possibly. Or, am I asking too much out of the money machine that is federal politics?
The system worked, but no one won
So the verdict came down in the Michael Dunn case. Convicted on three counts of attempted murder and one count of illegal firearm discharge Mr. Dunn is going to be going to jail for a long time. The first degree murder charge against him for the death of Jordan Davis resulted in a hung jury and mistrail. It will most likely be retried.
The case came about after Mr. Dunn approached a Dodge Durango filled with 4 black teens complaining their music was too loud. Mr. Dunn was carrying a weapon as allowed by Florida law. The teens, being teens, ignored Mr. Dunn's request and probably said some things that were rude and they shouldn't have said.
Mr. Dunn then thought he saw a gun in the vehicle which prompted him to pull his weapon and fire 10 times into the car, three of the bullets striking Jordan Davis killing him.
No gun was found in the vehicle, though it did initially leave the scene (I'm fairly certain I would've as well if some crazy person was shooting at me.) They did return to the scene and if a gun was ever in the vehicle, there was no evidence of it. All there was evidence of was a dead teenager and a man who ruined many lives, including his own.
We'll never know if there was a gun in that Durango and honestly I feel it doesn't matter. Mr. Dunn was not a law enforcement officer. He had no official capacity to enforce gun laws. If he felt threatened, he probably should have done what most people would do and back down from a hostile situation.
But no, not in our modern American. Not in a land where "Stand Your Ground" laws exist because those pesky criminals have too much power.
We have guns and we should be able to carry them where we wish and we can protect ourselves when we feel threatened.
Except, doesn't that kind of leave a lot of open space? I mean, "feeling threatened." That's pretty damn vague. So vague that it led a man carrying a gun to fire into a vehicle with four teenagers inside. It also allowed a man to fire at another in a theater who was texting and threw popcorn at him.
I don't mean to make my blog about guns or gun violence, but its been weighing on me heavily lately.
Lives are being ruined all over this country by America's blind love of guns in any and all situations.
Do I think Michael Dunn is some monster? Someone who was just looking for an excuse to kill? Of course not. I think he was probably a pretty normal person. However, pretty normal can change when you're carrying a gun. Its unfortunately, but too many people view guns as some kind of panacea.
I have to wonder, as I do in most of these situations, if Mr. Dunn would have approached the Durango if he had not been armed. Why he felt the need to be the enforcer of public decency, I'm not sure. Were the kids being disrespectful with their loud music? Quite possibly, they're kids, it happens.
But, so what? Its annoying. How many things in life are annoying? I could start a list that never ends. How many of them are worth killing or dying over? List just got a whole lot shorter.
However, the gun lobby has done an excellent job of instilling fear in Americans making them think that carrying a weapon is needed to live in safety.
One can only hope cases such as this, with one life lost, and other lives mangled, will be the aberration, not the norm going forward.
The case came about after Mr. Dunn approached a Dodge Durango filled with 4 black teens complaining their music was too loud. Mr. Dunn was carrying a weapon as allowed by Florida law. The teens, being teens, ignored Mr. Dunn's request and probably said some things that were rude and they shouldn't have said.
Mr. Dunn then thought he saw a gun in the vehicle which prompted him to pull his weapon and fire 10 times into the car, three of the bullets striking Jordan Davis killing him.
No gun was found in the vehicle, though it did initially leave the scene (I'm fairly certain I would've as well if some crazy person was shooting at me.) They did return to the scene and if a gun was ever in the vehicle, there was no evidence of it. All there was evidence of was a dead teenager and a man who ruined many lives, including his own.
We'll never know if there was a gun in that Durango and honestly I feel it doesn't matter. Mr. Dunn was not a law enforcement officer. He had no official capacity to enforce gun laws. If he felt threatened, he probably should have done what most people would do and back down from a hostile situation.
But no, not in our modern American. Not in a land where "Stand Your Ground" laws exist because those pesky criminals have too much power.
We have guns and we should be able to carry them where we wish and we can protect ourselves when we feel threatened.
Except, doesn't that kind of leave a lot of open space? I mean, "feeling threatened." That's pretty damn vague. So vague that it led a man carrying a gun to fire into a vehicle with four teenagers inside. It also allowed a man to fire at another in a theater who was texting and threw popcorn at him.
I don't mean to make my blog about guns or gun violence, but its been weighing on me heavily lately.
Lives are being ruined all over this country by America's blind love of guns in any and all situations.
Do I think Michael Dunn is some monster? Someone who was just looking for an excuse to kill? Of course not. I think he was probably a pretty normal person. However, pretty normal can change when you're carrying a gun. Its unfortunately, but too many people view guns as some kind of panacea.
I have to wonder, as I do in most of these situations, if Mr. Dunn would have approached the Durango if he had not been armed. Why he felt the need to be the enforcer of public decency, I'm not sure. Were the kids being disrespectful with their loud music? Quite possibly, they're kids, it happens.
But, so what? Its annoying. How many things in life are annoying? I could start a list that never ends. How many of them are worth killing or dying over? List just got a whole lot shorter.
However, the gun lobby has done an excellent job of instilling fear in Americans making them think that carrying a weapon is needed to live in safety.
One can only hope cases such as this, with one life lost, and other lives mangled, will be the aberration, not the norm going forward.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Boycott Coke? Really? This is the crushing issue facing you people?
I'll try to keep this post from degenerating to bitter and spiteful ad hominem attacks on those I disagree with. Its gonna be tough, but I'm pretty sure I can do it.
Apparently a slightly sappy, slightly touchy, seemingly out of place, yet overall innocuous Coke ad has the racists up in arms. I'll admit, I love when people get upset about stuff like this because it lets me know who I can pretty much write off their opinion about anything.
The ad, oh the horrible, terrible ad, featured "America the Beautiful" a song sung by Queen Latifa not more than 90 minutes prior to the commercial. Why the fuss? Because, HORRORS, the song was sung in many languages, NOT JUST ENGLISH!
Oh no! Whatever shall we do? How can we face the fact we're a multi-racial, multi-lingual, extremely diverse country? I know what we should do, we should take to Twitter and Facebook and blogs like mine nobody reads and react as racist and xenophobic as possible!
"In my 'Murkah we speak English gash darn it!"
Well, frankly America has never been a nation of one language, not should it be now. Prior to Europeans landing there was a plethora of Native American languages being spoken. The first European language spoken was Viking (yeah, I have no idea what language they spoke, some old form of Danish?), the second, Spanish. Then French, THEN English.
Sure, the English crown came to rule the 13 colonies who in a fit of tea party pique decided to rebel and instead of becoming more like Canada allowed us to become the joke we are today, but even then, all sorts of languages were being spoken, daily, across the continent.
Immigrant groups came, and came, and came and somehow America trudged along, getting along with these strange newcomers and their odd accents and culture. They slowly assimilated, keeping some traditions, sometimes keeping a langauge (rarely) but mostly becoming more or less American.
Now though, somehow this is a threat. All these people that don't look like me, don't talk like me and don't dress like me, they're dangerous and scary. And Coke is putting them in a commercial and goshdarnit Coke you gave me diabetus and made me require a Hoverround but I am quitting you over this. For good. Big KKK, er Big K is my drink of choice now. Or Shasta. Or a good American drink like Sam's Cola from them nice folks at Wal-mart (speaking of commercials to make you hurl....)
Get over it people. America has always been, will always been, and SHOULD always be diverse! And goodness, a multinational company selling things all over the world (including pretty much the only functioning factory in Somalia) is probably all about the diversity don't you think? Oh, but that only applies elsewhere. Got it.
If you want to get annoyed about anything, get annoyed by the faux patriotism tied to every sporting event now. I get it, most of the country is watching football (I love football), but there's nothing inherently patriotic about a sporting event no matter how many times we butcher the anthem, no matter how many flyovers we do, or how many times we show the troops in some far off country that don't need to be in watching the game at god knows what hour of the night instead of being home with their families watching it.
The Coke ad, which I found a bit sappy, was an accurate portrayal of America as it is now, as it has been and how it should and will be, regardless of how much you racist hillbillies want to pretend otherwise.
So, go buy your cheap beer brewed by a foreign company, purchase it at your local sprawlmart paying subhuman wages and importing everything possible from China, whine about how hard the white man has it in America and continue to believe giving more money to rich people and deporting everyone who doesn't learn English in a timely fashion is going to solve your problems. You are the anachronism and you are the problem. Not the person with the accent, the funny clothes or the different colored skin.
Apparently a slightly sappy, slightly touchy, seemingly out of place, yet overall innocuous Coke ad has the racists up in arms. I'll admit, I love when people get upset about stuff like this because it lets me know who I can pretty much write off their opinion about anything.
The ad, oh the horrible, terrible ad, featured "America the Beautiful" a song sung by Queen Latifa not more than 90 minutes prior to the commercial. Why the fuss? Because, HORRORS, the song was sung in many languages, NOT JUST ENGLISH!
Oh no! Whatever shall we do? How can we face the fact we're a multi-racial, multi-lingual, extremely diverse country? I know what we should do, we should take to Twitter and Facebook and blogs like mine nobody reads and react as racist and xenophobic as possible!
"In my 'Murkah we speak English gash darn it!"
Well, frankly America has never been a nation of one language, not should it be now. Prior to Europeans landing there was a plethora of Native American languages being spoken. The first European language spoken was Viking (yeah, I have no idea what language they spoke, some old form of Danish?), the second, Spanish. Then French, THEN English.
Sure, the English crown came to rule the 13 colonies who in a fit of tea party pique decided to rebel and instead of becoming more like Canada allowed us to become the joke we are today, but even then, all sorts of languages were being spoken, daily, across the continent.
Immigrant groups came, and came, and came and somehow America trudged along, getting along with these strange newcomers and their odd accents and culture. They slowly assimilated, keeping some traditions, sometimes keeping a langauge (rarely) but mostly becoming more or less American.
Now though, somehow this is a threat. All these people that don't look like me, don't talk like me and don't dress like me, they're dangerous and scary. And Coke is putting them in a commercial and goshdarnit Coke you gave me diabetus and made me require a Hoverround but I am quitting you over this. For good. Big KKK, er Big K is my drink of choice now. Or Shasta. Or a good American drink like Sam's Cola from them nice folks at Wal-mart (speaking of commercials to make you hurl....)
Get over it people. America has always been, will always been, and SHOULD always be diverse! And goodness, a multinational company selling things all over the world (including pretty much the only functioning factory in Somalia) is probably all about the diversity don't you think? Oh, but that only applies elsewhere. Got it.
If you want to get annoyed about anything, get annoyed by the faux patriotism tied to every sporting event now. I get it, most of the country is watching football (I love football), but there's nothing inherently patriotic about a sporting event no matter how many times we butcher the anthem, no matter how many flyovers we do, or how many times we show the troops in some far off country that don't need to be in watching the game at god knows what hour of the night instead of being home with their families watching it.
The Coke ad, which I found a bit sappy, was an accurate portrayal of America as it is now, as it has been and how it should and will be, regardless of how much you racist hillbillies want to pretend otherwise.
So, go buy your cheap beer brewed by a foreign company, purchase it at your local sprawlmart paying subhuman wages and importing everything possible from China, whine about how hard the white man has it in America and continue to believe giving more money to rich people and deporting everyone who doesn't learn English in a timely fashion is going to solve your problems. You are the anachronism and you are the problem. Not the person with the accent, the funny clothes or the different colored skin.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
What does it take?
So, today, there was another mass shooting/shooting spree/murder suicide at a mall. Last night a shooting on a college campus. There's almost shootings in major cities around the country. In Peoria, IL last year, there were 65 shootings, or a little more than 1 a week on average.
I could keep spouting off stats on the number of children killed or wounded by gunfire (usually accidental from idiot family or friends have loaded guns accessible) but obviously facts don't appear to matter.
So, what is it going to take for America to understand it has a problem with guns? The rest of the developed world thinks we're insane for our gun laws. Before I go any farther, I want to state, I'm not in favor of banning all guns. In fact, I'm not in favor of banning any guns (more on that in a bit). I am in favor of putting the power back in the hands of our elected officials and out of the hands of the gun lobby.
But back to my title question: Is there any atrocity large enough for Congress to pass some sensible national gun safety laws?
Columbine happened in 1999. Virginia Tech 2007. NIU Shooting 2008. Aurora Colorado 2012. Sandy Hook 2012. To say nothing of the day to day violence that goes on in cities across America. Shootings in Chicago's south side happen pretty much daily, but it took an honor student who'd recently visited the White House getting shot to bring any light on the problem because, lets be honest, white America at large doesn't care much if minorities are getting shot as long as its not in their neighborhood.
Now, violent crimes in general are down over the last 25 odd years, and murders are down a lot (due in a large part to better medical facilities, especially in inner cities). One would think this weakens the argument for an armed populace though it inevitably gets twisted into a "no, criminals are scared of robbing folks because that guy might have a gun." Yes, because old west style shootouts over holdups are common, especially compared to accidental shootings.
The real problem is access to weapons. It is hilariously easy to get a gun. And once you have a gun, thanks to the fact that many states do nothing to register a gun TO the purchaser, well, who knows what you do with it.
Once upon a time it was relatively difficult for criminals to acquire guns. Then the 80s came along and we saw the first wave of weapons designed with no other purpose than to be used in the urban combat zones some of our cities became.
Weapons like the Tec-9, Mac-10 and various others served 2 purposes: 1) to put a large amount of bullets in a general area quickly and 2) line the pockets of gun companies profiting on death and mayhem.
Eventually the situation became dire enough that laws were passed limited automatic or assault-style weapons, certain types of high capacity magazines and certain types of ammunition. (This law has since been allowed to lapse due largely to the efforts of the NRA lobbying for the gun companies who want to sell such weapons.)
Now, we face such a crisis again. Gun companies have flooded the market with cheap handguns, many which have magazines holding 8-13 rounds and cheap military styled rifles with clips holding 15-30 rounds. While most gun crimes are committed with the first type of gun, numerous high profile cases have involved the latter. (And I'm sure every citizen armed with their Glock or Springfield is going to want to go up against a nut-case with an AR-15 or SKS.)
We are allowing people to profit off mayhem. Now, I know our gov't does it every day, it sickens me there too, but that's an issue for another blog. We, as a country are stupidly allowing a small cabal of companies to make our country MORE dangerous while promoting the idea of more guns being needed for protection. It boggles the mind doesn't it? Obviously flooding society with more weapons, easily accessible by the mentally ill or mentally distraught, easily stolen during home invasions, easily sold with little to no oversight by anyone in authority to God knows who.
You don't believe me? In IL, this is what it takes to buy or sell a gun privately:
"A buyer is required to show his Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm. The waiting period does not apply to a buyer who is a dealer, law enforcement officer, or a nonresident at a gun show recognized by the Illinois Department of State Police. The seller must retain for 10 years a record of the transfer, including a description of the firearm (including serial number), the identity of the buyer, and the buyer’s FOID number.
A federally licensed dealer must contact the Department of State Police for a background check, for which there is a $2.00 fee. Any sales at gun shows, including dealers and private parties, must contact the state police for a background check.
Private parties selling firearms at gun shows must ensure the buyer has a FOID card and the buyer must undergo a background check. It is unlawful to sell or give any handgun to a person under 18, or any firearm to a person who is not eligible to obtain a FOID."
From http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/illinois.aspx
Cause yeah, that's easy to enforce.
So, here are the problems. Any sane person should be able to see them. What do I propose? Well, many things, none of which include banning guns.
1. Every gun, EVERY SINGLE GUN, is registered to the purchaser BY serial number. Now, where on the gun? That would be something to hammer out in the law because people like to upgrade/modify their weapons. If the law would cut into that sector, tough.
2. Every gun sale occurs at a licensed facility. You pay $15, $5 to the dealer to sign off on the deal, $10 to the state to register the gun in the new owners name. You have go TWICE. Once to officially start the deal, then again after the waiting period to finalize the deal.
3. All gun show exceptions shall be done away with. Gun shows will be subject to the same laws as any other gun sale. They have your address, they can ship it to you.
4. Any and all gun accessories, that pertain to the functioning of a weapon, from grips, to actions, to firing pins, to magazines, to trigger assemblies may only be produced by licensed ATF builders. Tough. Can't get a license? You can make holsters or gun cases or something.
5. Any magazine holding more than 8 rounds cannot be kept in your home. Along with all military style rifles, such items can only be used at licensed ranges. Ranges will be licensed by the state. Anyone is free to join a range (and the range can be free if they want) but to take advantage of the higher capacity magazines or military style rifles, you must pay for a higher class of FOID card. Much like the license required to drive a car is different than a semi, the license required to own a .22 target pistol is different than an AR-15.
There would be a 6 month grace period for those already owning said items to register them with a licensed range. If you are transporting the weapon to a different range, you must sign it out with the range it is currently registered at and have 72 hours to register it at the new range. If you do not, you are fined. If this happens on three separate occasions you lose the right to these items.
The time period is waived if the item is shipped directly from one range to another.
6. If your gun is stolen you can be held liable for crimes committed with it if you do not report its loss. This would encourage more people to keep their damned guns locked up so that during home invasions its difficult for them to be stolen. Oh, and also means your kids can't get their hands on it.
7. To concealed carry a weapon you must pass rigorous tests on a yearly basis. ANY citation, be it seatbelt, speeding, parking tickets, etc. causes you to lose the right to concealed carry for 6 months. Any misdemeanor loses the right to concealed carry forever. Anyone found violating a private "Weapons not allowed" sign will lose their right to carry forever.
8. These are the NATIONAL laws. States can pass stricter requirements if they like.
Do I believe these would stop gun crime? Of course not. Do I think they'd be a step in the right direction to begin minimizing the gun violence plaguing our society? Yes.
It is a fact, a cold hard fact, that making crimes even slightly harder to commit causes a significant drop in crime. Making it slightly more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns, many of which are legally bought and then illegally resold on the black market would help minimize the damage.
People who like guns can still have their guns, possibly not in their home, but they can still have them. People who aren't as fond of guns can be a little more assured there is an actual process to getting and keeping a gun. Yes, it'd be more strenuous to own a weapon, but why is it as easy if not easier to own a gun then a car? Weapons for hunting would hardly be effected by this at all.
This isn't going to happen, I know it, you know it, everyone know its. But some of it NEEDS to happen in some form. We NEED to slow down the flood of guns into everybody's hands. I'm sorry, but not everyone needs or should have a gun. And making it a bit harder to get, and keep, your guns isn't a bad thing. Also it could help cut down on minor violations as well if people could lose access to their guns. People sure seem to love their guns.
I could keep spouting off stats on the number of children killed or wounded by gunfire (usually accidental from idiot family or friends have loaded guns accessible) but obviously facts don't appear to matter.
So, what is it going to take for America to understand it has a problem with guns? The rest of the developed world thinks we're insane for our gun laws. Before I go any farther, I want to state, I'm not in favor of banning all guns. In fact, I'm not in favor of banning any guns (more on that in a bit). I am in favor of putting the power back in the hands of our elected officials and out of the hands of the gun lobby.
But back to my title question: Is there any atrocity large enough for Congress to pass some sensible national gun safety laws?
Columbine happened in 1999. Virginia Tech 2007. NIU Shooting 2008. Aurora Colorado 2012. Sandy Hook 2012. To say nothing of the day to day violence that goes on in cities across America. Shootings in Chicago's south side happen pretty much daily, but it took an honor student who'd recently visited the White House getting shot to bring any light on the problem because, lets be honest, white America at large doesn't care much if minorities are getting shot as long as its not in their neighborhood.
Now, violent crimes in general are down over the last 25 odd years, and murders are down a lot (due in a large part to better medical facilities, especially in inner cities). One would think this weakens the argument for an armed populace though it inevitably gets twisted into a "no, criminals are scared of robbing folks because that guy might have a gun." Yes, because old west style shootouts over holdups are common, especially compared to accidental shootings.
The real problem is access to weapons. It is hilariously easy to get a gun. And once you have a gun, thanks to the fact that many states do nothing to register a gun TO the purchaser, well, who knows what you do with it.
Once upon a time it was relatively difficult for criminals to acquire guns. Then the 80s came along and we saw the first wave of weapons designed with no other purpose than to be used in the urban combat zones some of our cities became.
Weapons like the Tec-9, Mac-10 and various others served 2 purposes: 1) to put a large amount of bullets in a general area quickly and 2) line the pockets of gun companies profiting on death and mayhem.
Eventually the situation became dire enough that laws were passed limited automatic or assault-style weapons, certain types of high capacity magazines and certain types of ammunition. (This law has since been allowed to lapse due largely to the efforts of the NRA lobbying for the gun companies who want to sell such weapons.)
Now, we face such a crisis again. Gun companies have flooded the market with cheap handguns, many which have magazines holding 8-13 rounds and cheap military styled rifles with clips holding 15-30 rounds. While most gun crimes are committed with the first type of gun, numerous high profile cases have involved the latter. (And I'm sure every citizen armed with their Glock or Springfield is going to want to go up against a nut-case with an AR-15 or SKS.)
We are allowing people to profit off mayhem. Now, I know our gov't does it every day, it sickens me there too, but that's an issue for another blog. We, as a country are stupidly allowing a small cabal of companies to make our country MORE dangerous while promoting the idea of more guns being needed for protection. It boggles the mind doesn't it? Obviously flooding society with more weapons, easily accessible by the mentally ill or mentally distraught, easily stolen during home invasions, easily sold with little to no oversight by anyone in authority to God knows who.
You don't believe me? In IL, this is what it takes to buy or sell a gun privately:
"A buyer is required to show his Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm. The waiting period does not apply to a buyer who is a dealer, law enforcement officer, or a nonresident at a gun show recognized by the Illinois Department of State Police. The seller must retain for 10 years a record of the transfer, including a description of the firearm (including serial number), the identity of the buyer, and the buyer’s FOID number.
A federally licensed dealer must contact the Department of State Police for a background check, for which there is a $2.00 fee. Any sales at gun shows, including dealers and private parties, must contact the state police for a background check.
Private parties selling firearms at gun shows must ensure the buyer has a FOID card and the buyer must undergo a background check. It is unlawful to sell or give any handgun to a person under 18, or any firearm to a person who is not eligible to obtain a FOID."
From http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/illinois.aspx
Cause yeah, that's easy to enforce.
So, here are the problems. Any sane person should be able to see them. What do I propose? Well, many things, none of which include banning guns.
1. Every gun, EVERY SINGLE GUN, is registered to the purchaser BY serial number. Now, where on the gun? That would be something to hammer out in the law because people like to upgrade/modify their weapons. If the law would cut into that sector, tough.
2. Every gun sale occurs at a licensed facility. You pay $15, $5 to the dealer to sign off on the deal, $10 to the state to register the gun in the new owners name. You have go TWICE. Once to officially start the deal, then again after the waiting period to finalize the deal.
3. All gun show exceptions shall be done away with. Gun shows will be subject to the same laws as any other gun sale. They have your address, they can ship it to you.
4. Any and all gun accessories, that pertain to the functioning of a weapon, from grips, to actions, to firing pins, to magazines, to trigger assemblies may only be produced by licensed ATF builders. Tough. Can't get a license? You can make holsters or gun cases or something.
5. Any magazine holding more than 8 rounds cannot be kept in your home. Along with all military style rifles, such items can only be used at licensed ranges. Ranges will be licensed by the state. Anyone is free to join a range (and the range can be free if they want) but to take advantage of the higher capacity magazines or military style rifles, you must pay for a higher class of FOID card. Much like the license required to drive a car is different than a semi, the license required to own a .22 target pistol is different than an AR-15.
There would be a 6 month grace period for those already owning said items to register them with a licensed range. If you are transporting the weapon to a different range, you must sign it out with the range it is currently registered at and have 72 hours to register it at the new range. If you do not, you are fined. If this happens on three separate occasions you lose the right to these items.
The time period is waived if the item is shipped directly from one range to another.
6. If your gun is stolen you can be held liable for crimes committed with it if you do not report its loss. This would encourage more people to keep their damned guns locked up so that during home invasions its difficult for them to be stolen. Oh, and also means your kids can't get their hands on it.
7. To concealed carry a weapon you must pass rigorous tests on a yearly basis. ANY citation, be it seatbelt, speeding, parking tickets, etc. causes you to lose the right to concealed carry for 6 months. Any misdemeanor loses the right to concealed carry forever. Anyone found violating a private "Weapons not allowed" sign will lose their right to carry forever.
8. These are the NATIONAL laws. States can pass stricter requirements if they like.
Do I believe these would stop gun crime? Of course not. Do I think they'd be a step in the right direction to begin minimizing the gun violence plaguing our society? Yes.
It is a fact, a cold hard fact, that making crimes even slightly harder to commit causes a significant drop in crime. Making it slightly more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns, many of which are legally bought and then illegally resold on the black market would help minimize the damage.
People who like guns can still have their guns, possibly not in their home, but they can still have them. People who aren't as fond of guns can be a little more assured there is an actual process to getting and keeping a gun. Yes, it'd be more strenuous to own a weapon, but why is it as easy if not easier to own a gun then a car? Weapons for hunting would hardly be effected by this at all.
This isn't going to happen, I know it, you know it, everyone know its. But some of it NEEDS to happen in some form. We NEED to slow down the flood of guns into everybody's hands. I'm sorry, but not everyone needs or should have a gun. And making it a bit harder to get, and keep, your guns isn't a bad thing. Also it could help cut down on minor violations as well if people could lose access to their guns. People sure seem to love their guns.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Congress is Useless
So, sequestration starts today. Maybe this will be the necessary step that leads us to vote every last incumbent out of office next election. Lets create a completely artificial problem to force us to deal with a larger actual problem and then be so dysfunctional to not even deal with the artificial problem we created which, oh, by the way, is barely a drop in the bucket anyway.
I'm sick of the Senate Democrats not putting forth a budget. I don't care if it gets voted down, filibustered, whatever, DO YOUR JOB AND COME UP WITH A BUDGET!
I'm even more sick of the Republicans living in bizarro world where the federal government isn't a massive economic engine.
Bear with me here because whether or not you are a Keynesian, there is some truth to what I'm going to say.
Like it or not, the Federal government, directly, through Federal employees, or indirectly through secondary industries like defense, employees or helps pay for hundreds of thousands if not millions of employees.
Randomly cutting 10% off the budget, does not fix any problems, it just puts less money into the economy. All those people getting furloughed every so often? That's less money they can spend. All those companies relying on gov't contracts? That's less money coming in, less hiring, and less money getting spent on good to make products and goods purchased by employees.
Am I predicting a return to recession because of this? Not necessarily, though I could see it happening if it goes on long enough. I am saying that our economy, for the average person, is not overly strong. Our wages aren't going up and prices are.
This stupid "sequestration" isn't solving the debt crisis but it certainly could set back the slow recovery we've been having.
Brilliant Congress. Brilliant.
I'm sick of the Senate Democrats not putting forth a budget. I don't care if it gets voted down, filibustered, whatever, DO YOUR JOB AND COME UP WITH A BUDGET!
I'm even more sick of the Republicans living in bizarro world where the federal government isn't a massive economic engine.
Bear with me here because whether or not you are a Keynesian, there is some truth to what I'm going to say.
Like it or not, the Federal government, directly, through Federal employees, or indirectly through secondary industries like defense, employees or helps pay for hundreds of thousands if not millions of employees.
Randomly cutting 10% off the budget, does not fix any problems, it just puts less money into the economy. All those people getting furloughed every so often? That's less money they can spend. All those companies relying on gov't contracts? That's less money coming in, less hiring, and less money getting spent on good to make products and goods purchased by employees.
Am I predicting a return to recession because of this? Not necessarily, though I could see it happening if it goes on long enough. I am saying that our economy, for the average person, is not overly strong. Our wages aren't going up and prices are.
This stupid "sequestration" isn't solving the debt crisis but it certainly could set back the slow recovery we've been having.
Brilliant Congress. Brilliant.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
NRA out of touch
Yeah, this is also going to be tangentially related to gun-control because yesterday the NRA finally showed its face and held a press conference. It probably would be better for them if they hadn't, but hey, why keep silent when you can say something stupid.
The NRA, as I'm sure you've heard by now, called for armed guards in every school in America because this is going to somehow prevent horrific tragedies from occurring. Yes folks, the answer to solving violence committed by legal guns is to give more people legal guns. Amazing isn't it?
Let's begin by looking at the latest shooting. A young man, fully committed to murder, planned an assault on a school. His mother worked at the school, so he knew it fairly well. We're to believe that an armed guard was going to be anything but the first victim? Ok, so lets assume the armed guard isn't the first victim, the gunman goes in a different door and possibly only kills maybe 6 or 8 people before....what?
A gunfight with the officer ensues with him having a pistol and something to live for versus someone who cares nothing for their own life or the lives of others armed with a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine? Ideally the guard takes out the shooter and the tragedy is "only" 6 or 8 dead instead of 28. Better? I suppose, but it still did nothing to PREVENT the tragedy from happening. It merely mitigated the damage and while in my hypothetical scenario 8 dead is better than 28 its a far cry from NO dead. Which is what we want!
So, outside of the problem that merely having armed guards does nothing to prevent disturbed individuals from getting their hands on powerful weapons, let's go to the second issue. Who's going to pay for this? Now, if the NRA wants to step up and do so, that's fine by me. But, otherwise, many schools can't afford enough staff as is. Where are they going to get the money to pay for armed guards? Even if the local police department provides the guard, the money still has to come from somewhere to pay their salary.
And, schools aren't just in use from 7:30 to 3:30 M-F. Is there going to be an armed guard on premises any time the school is in use? It seems like such a simple thing, but simply from a logistical standpoint its not.
The NRA is out of touch with the average American gun owner. They portray themselves as staunch defenders of gun owners rights, when in reality its basically a lobby for gun manufacturers. The NRA wants its members to buy as many guns as possible, hence the constant scare tactics and fear-mongering, because this brings in hefty amounts of cash from the companies benefiting from the gun purchases.
The government isn't going to come into your house to take all your guns away. But maybe, just maybe, its time to put some logical safeguards in place that might help prevent the next Sandy Hook or Aurora. In a country that has almost 1 gun for every person you can't realistically do away with guns. But if you can start to minimize the opportunity for disturbed people to get their hands on guns in legal methods, its a start.
So please, gun owners. If you are NRA members, it might be time to rethink that. The NRA don't care about you or about the best interests of gun owners. They care about your money and the best interests of the gun sellers. There are organizations out there that can support your right to own firearms that do it in a sensible and humane manner.
We also need some radical reform of our mental health services in this country, though while it appears the Sandy Hook killer possibly had some mental illness, his actions were completely pre-meditated. He just didn't care what he did in his final act, he just wanted to cause as much pain and suffering to as many as possible on his way out because mommy wasn't giving him what he wanted anymore and was scared of him.
Apparently not scared enough to get the freaking guns out of the house, but hey, we can't speak ill of the dead right?
The NRA, as I'm sure you've heard by now, called for armed guards in every school in America because this is going to somehow prevent horrific tragedies from occurring. Yes folks, the answer to solving violence committed by legal guns is to give more people legal guns. Amazing isn't it?
Let's begin by looking at the latest shooting. A young man, fully committed to murder, planned an assault on a school. His mother worked at the school, so he knew it fairly well. We're to believe that an armed guard was going to be anything but the first victim? Ok, so lets assume the armed guard isn't the first victim, the gunman goes in a different door and possibly only kills maybe 6 or 8 people before....what?
A gunfight with the officer ensues with him having a pistol and something to live for versus someone who cares nothing for their own life or the lives of others armed with a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine? Ideally the guard takes out the shooter and the tragedy is "only" 6 or 8 dead instead of 28. Better? I suppose, but it still did nothing to PREVENT the tragedy from happening. It merely mitigated the damage and while in my hypothetical scenario 8 dead is better than 28 its a far cry from NO dead. Which is what we want!
So, outside of the problem that merely having armed guards does nothing to prevent disturbed individuals from getting their hands on powerful weapons, let's go to the second issue. Who's going to pay for this? Now, if the NRA wants to step up and do so, that's fine by me. But, otherwise, many schools can't afford enough staff as is. Where are they going to get the money to pay for armed guards? Even if the local police department provides the guard, the money still has to come from somewhere to pay their salary.
And, schools aren't just in use from 7:30 to 3:30 M-F. Is there going to be an armed guard on premises any time the school is in use? It seems like such a simple thing, but simply from a logistical standpoint its not.
The NRA is out of touch with the average American gun owner. They portray themselves as staunch defenders of gun owners rights, when in reality its basically a lobby for gun manufacturers. The NRA wants its members to buy as many guns as possible, hence the constant scare tactics and fear-mongering, because this brings in hefty amounts of cash from the companies benefiting from the gun purchases.
The government isn't going to come into your house to take all your guns away. But maybe, just maybe, its time to put some logical safeguards in place that might help prevent the next Sandy Hook or Aurora. In a country that has almost 1 gun for every person you can't realistically do away with guns. But if you can start to minimize the opportunity for disturbed people to get their hands on guns in legal methods, its a start.
So please, gun owners. If you are NRA members, it might be time to rethink that. The NRA don't care about you or about the best interests of gun owners. They care about your money and the best interests of the gun sellers. There are organizations out there that can support your right to own firearms that do it in a sensible and humane manner.
We also need some radical reform of our mental health services in this country, though while it appears the Sandy Hook killer possibly had some mental illness, his actions were completely pre-meditated. He just didn't care what he did in his final act, he just wanted to cause as much pain and suffering to as many as possible on his way out because mommy wasn't giving him what he wanted anymore and was scared of him.
Apparently not scared enough to get the freaking guns out of the house, but hey, we can't speak ill of the dead right?
Rambling on Gun Control.
So, I've held off on this for a few days, but the statistics being bandied about are just making me crazy. For the record, I do not support banning guns. However, I do support tighter gun control, making it harder to get guns, and limiting or banning certain types of guns and accessories.
But on to some thoughts on statistics. The hilarious thing about using statistics to say how we don't need tighter gun controls is how it also utterly disproves the point of needing a gun for protection.
Yes, statistically the number of murders committed by legally owned guns is fairly low (though they make up a surprising number of the guns used in mass murders). And the number of murders and violent crimes in general in the US are still fairly low compared to most points in the last 50 years.
But, if those things are the case, why do so many people need guns for protection? Statistically your chances of being in a situation where you NEED a gun to defend yourself is almost 0, maybe, MAYBE 1 time in your life. (And the chances of being in a situation where you need a high capacity magazine or an AR-15 to defend yourself IS zero Unless you want bullets punching through a home invader, through the walls of your house and ending up god knows where.) Fear is good for gun sales though, which merely creates the potential for MORE gun violence as there are more guns out there to have accidents with, to get stolen, etc.
The interesting thing about guns for protection as well (outside of that being the EXACT SAME REASON gang members and drug dealers need guns, funny how that mentality is shared isn't it) is that with the chance of needing it being SO LOW that its mostly going to escalate non-violent or non-lethal situations into violent or lethal ones.
Florida currently has at least 2 cases, the Travon Martin case, and a second case where, because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, legal concealed carry folks killed unarmed citizens after confrontations escalated. Would those confrontations have happened if the antagonist hadn't been armed? I don't know. Maybe, but for SOME (not all) knowing they are carrying gives a false sense of security or invincibility.
I am not saying all gun owners are trigger happy fools, most aren't, very few are. BUT, again, guns are a force multiplier beyond knives, baseball bats, and pretty much anything outside of explosives. Why do we need anyone besides highly trained professionals carrying them on a daily basis? (I believe a citizen can be a highly trained professional, they just need to prove they are before they are allowed to concealed carry and they must go through tests yearly to keep their card.)
Since overall violence is down, why do those guns (semi-auto military styled rifles and high capacity magazines) need to be out there?
Sure, they are fun. I'm even for people being able to own them, they just must be kept at gun clubs where you go to shoot them. You don't get to have them at home. You can still have hunting rifles, even semi-auto hunting rifles, but nothing with a clip holding more than 10 rounds. (I'd say 6, but would settle for 10.)
One more piece of false logic the pro-"all guns all the time" folks trot out there. "Oh, there's too many of these guns out there, we can't put the genie back in the bottle." This type of broken thinking is how we are in the debt mess we're in as a nation. Sure, there is no instant fix, but that means we shouldn't do anything? Maybe we should apply this logic to cancer! "We can't cure ALL cancer and it costs a lot of money to fight cancer, so we should just stop trying." Hmmm, doesn't make much sense there does it?
I think its pretty simple. Ban sales of high capacity magazines NOW. No more sales of them, at ALL. (To you screaming BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COMPANIES THAT SELL THEM! JOBS!! I would say 1) stop being merchants of death 2) after legislation is passed, the magazines can be sold to the gun clubs, who can then sell them to members for use ONLY at the gun club.)
Then, work out the details of how to get them out of people's homes. Don't make it a ridiculous offense. If someone has a FOID card, but still has now illegal weapons in their home, they can 1) register the weapons with whatever local agency will be registering weapons now (I have to register a car, why do I not have to register every single gun I own by serial number?) and then take the weapon to the local gun club or 2) turn the weapon over to the local agency and get paid fair market value for it (paid for by registration fees). There would be a five year window where you could do these things for free (only new guns would require registration fees). After that five year period, if you could show your FOID card, you'd pay a small fine and then be allowed to register your weapons. and pay a fee.
See, people can own guns, it will just be more costly. You can still shoot your guns, just certain types have to be shot at certain places. This is NOT rocket science.
Will this stop gun violence or the next massacre? Of course not, evil people or ill people can still find a way, but it will make it harder to do so and that DOES help prevent crime. (There are actual statistics to back that up too.)
If you think this is the gov't taking away your rights, I don't care. You can still own guns, you just have to do it in a way that makes sense. The way we currently do it MAKES NO SENSE and needs to change.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
4 more years....
Well, President Obama won. This doesn't come as a surprise to me, I was going to be shocked if Romney won. (More on that in a few paragraphs)
Mr. President, while I'm not thrilled with your first term, you have been given a second chance. A chance to finish what you started, to start the things you talked about, and generally work as best you can to help right the course for America.
You have a big job in front of you and I don't know if you can actually do it. You're too beholden to the monied interests. I'll be interested who you replace on your cabinet. You don't seem to be dynamic enough in your leadership.
BUT, you don't have to worry about reelection now. You have a slightly more accommodating Congress, one who might actually be willing to work with you now. But you still must put forward some actual ideas, and ways to implement them.
I wish you luck in your second term, hopefully it will be the start of a new era for America.
Now, to those of you surprised by Romney's loss...why? What made you believe he was going to win?
Was it his staunch beliefs? Wait, I have no idea what he believes in because it changes, every single election.
Was it his proven governing power? Oh, wait, he's had to disavow his biggest accomplishment as governor because it smacked of socialism to the far right.
Was it his likeable personality? Not really, he's random rich old white dude. You could insert about 50 other guys in his stead and they'd all be the same.
Maybe his proven record as a leader of a company? Well, sort of. His company made lots of money, but lots of that was made by buying and gutting companies and outsourcing jobs. I understand that happens, and sometimes it should, but its not gonna win you votes.
Was it his appeal to others besides whites? I can't even come up with something snarky to respond here. Its just hilarious.
America, while still run by whites (look at congress), is slowly starting to show in their vote that "Hey, there are people of other cultures here, other backgrounds besides WASP or white catholic." The Republican leadership, the Republican "base," and Republican news outlets like Fox News are scared to admit that and delude themselves into thinking that the changing face of America isn't happening or that it can be reversed. No, it can't!
I've already read 3 or 4 blogs and articles just today from tea party people saying the reason Romney lost was that he wasn't far right enough!!! Wait a second, you honestly believe that a Rick Santorum, or Mike Huckabee, would have fared better? If so, good luck to you in 4 years because you're going to be sorely disappointed yet again.
Hopefully, the Republicans will embrace the changing face of America and revise their platform to be more inclusive and in doing so actually put candidates up for consideration that bring something to the table besides isolationism, xenophobia, and broken jokes of economic plans.
Mr. President, while I'm not thrilled with your first term, you have been given a second chance. A chance to finish what you started, to start the things you talked about, and generally work as best you can to help right the course for America.
You have a big job in front of you and I don't know if you can actually do it. You're too beholden to the monied interests. I'll be interested who you replace on your cabinet. You don't seem to be dynamic enough in your leadership.
BUT, you don't have to worry about reelection now. You have a slightly more accommodating Congress, one who might actually be willing to work with you now. But you still must put forward some actual ideas, and ways to implement them.
I wish you luck in your second term, hopefully it will be the start of a new era for America.
Now, to those of you surprised by Romney's loss...why? What made you believe he was going to win?
Was it his staunch beliefs? Wait, I have no idea what he believes in because it changes, every single election.
Was it his proven governing power? Oh, wait, he's had to disavow his biggest accomplishment as governor because it smacked of socialism to the far right.
Was it his likeable personality? Not really, he's random rich old white dude. You could insert about 50 other guys in his stead and they'd all be the same.
Maybe his proven record as a leader of a company? Well, sort of. His company made lots of money, but lots of that was made by buying and gutting companies and outsourcing jobs. I understand that happens, and sometimes it should, but its not gonna win you votes.
Was it his appeal to others besides whites? I can't even come up with something snarky to respond here. Its just hilarious.
America, while still run by whites (look at congress), is slowly starting to show in their vote that "Hey, there are people of other cultures here, other backgrounds besides WASP or white catholic." The Republican leadership, the Republican "base," and Republican news outlets like Fox News are scared to admit that and delude themselves into thinking that the changing face of America isn't happening or that it can be reversed. No, it can't!
I've already read 3 or 4 blogs and articles just today from tea party people saying the reason Romney lost was that he wasn't far right enough!!! Wait a second, you honestly believe that a Rick Santorum, or Mike Huckabee, would have fared better? If so, good luck to you in 4 years because you're going to be sorely disappointed yet again.
Hopefully, the Republicans will embrace the changing face of America and revise their platform to be more inclusive and in doing so actually put candidates up for consideration that bring something to the table besides isolationism, xenophobia, and broken jokes of economic plans.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Romney, you are pathetic
Disclaimer: 99.9% of political ads are lies, distortions and half truths. From both parties, from all groups.
With that said, the Romney campaign has taken things to a level almost of the Swift Boat myths of the Bush days.
The claim made in Romney's ads in Ohio, a state Romney is losing in and that has been pummeled by the loss of manufacturing jobs over the past 30 years, are 100% lies. Lies, not distortions, but flat out lies, refuted by the very companies Romney was lying about.
Jeep is NOT moving jobs from Ohio to China, nor is GM cutting American jobs to move to China. Both companies are expanding in China, operations COMPLETELY SEPARATE from their North American operations.
Both Fiat, speaking about their Jeep division, and GM have refuted the Romney camp's ads, and beyond ads, things Romney has hinted at in speeches.
Romney, someone who made millions gutting companies and laying off workers, is amazing in his gall. The man will literally say anything to get elected. When you are the most accomplished political waffler, that is saying something and what it's saying isn't good.
Now, I'm not saying the Obama campaign is 100% truthful. I'm sick of political ads and political lies. But the extreme's Romney is going to is pathetic. The man is not fit to run the country because as far as I can tell he has no actual beliefs of his own, merely what it takes to get elected to the next office.
Seriously, look at how his views have changed from his days as governor of Massachusetts. Its not slight wavering to gain politcal wiggle room, its wholesale changes in a desperate attempt to get elected and its pathetic.
I could handle the old Romney, Governor Romney as President. This man he's decided to become, its sickening. Its honestly sad when Obama, someone who accomplished little of his established goals and showed little of his stated beliefs in his first term, comes across as the more honest, principled option.
Ugh.
With that said, the Romney campaign has taken things to a level almost of the Swift Boat myths of the Bush days.
The claim made in Romney's ads in Ohio, a state Romney is losing in and that has been pummeled by the loss of manufacturing jobs over the past 30 years, are 100% lies. Lies, not distortions, but flat out lies, refuted by the very companies Romney was lying about.
Jeep is NOT moving jobs from Ohio to China, nor is GM cutting American jobs to move to China. Both companies are expanding in China, operations COMPLETELY SEPARATE from their North American operations.
Both Fiat, speaking about their Jeep division, and GM have refuted the Romney camp's ads, and beyond ads, things Romney has hinted at in speeches.
Romney, someone who made millions gutting companies and laying off workers, is amazing in his gall. The man will literally say anything to get elected. When you are the most accomplished political waffler, that is saying something and what it's saying isn't good.
Now, I'm not saying the Obama campaign is 100% truthful. I'm sick of political ads and political lies. But the extreme's Romney is going to is pathetic. The man is not fit to run the country because as far as I can tell he has no actual beliefs of his own, merely what it takes to get elected to the next office.
Seriously, look at how his views have changed from his days as governor of Massachusetts. Its not slight wavering to gain politcal wiggle room, its wholesale changes in a desperate attempt to get elected and its pathetic.
I could handle the old Romney, Governor Romney as President. This man he's decided to become, its sickening. Its honestly sad when Obama, someone who accomplished little of his established goals and showed little of his stated beliefs in his first term, comes across as the more honest, principled option.
Ugh.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Layoffs
So now the Koch brothers are warning of layoffs if Obama is reelected joining other rich plutocrats threatening the peasants if the peasants don't act according to their wishes.
Really. This is where we are in America? THESE are our leaders of industry? Men who (like the Koch brothers) have run successful businesses, made themselves PILES of money, and now, somehow, if Obama is reelected they are going to have to lay off everyday workers to stay profitable?
Hmm. I think this is a load of crap.
Why?
Oh, because of the tens, if not hundreds of millions these men have spent on political campaigns. Instead of reinvesting it in their businesses, or keeping it for tougher times, no, its their money, they can do what they want, so they try and get friendly politicians elected.
But then, if things don't go their way, they cry, take their ball and go home, and make their workers suffer so that they can keep their huge incomes and replenish the spending cash for the next election cycle in four years.
Look, I understand that its hard to run a business in the US. We need to overhaul our corporate tax system and we need to streamline and improve our regulating processes. I am NOT anti-businessman especially since, as much as I despise their politics the Koch brothers at least own businesses that PRODUCE things unlike the Wall Street boys that just shift data in computers.
That said, the whole "I made mine if you don't like it go make your own" mentality of too many of the wealthy in this country is nauseating. Its selfish and its destructive. And if they somehow believe that threatening their employees is going to solve America's problems, well, good luck to them on that.
The blind, selfish, willful ignorance and hubris of so many wealthy people sickens me. Thanks Supreme Court for allowing these guys to try and buy election after election. That's certainly what the Founding Fathers you hold so dear envisioned that First Amendment being used for. Nice work.
This probably makes even less sense than most of my posts but I am sick and tired of the rich feeling every bit as entitled (to a far larger piece of the pie, in fact almost ALL the pie) as the poor they like to blame for all our problems.
Really. This is where we are in America? THESE are our leaders of industry? Men who (like the Koch brothers) have run successful businesses, made themselves PILES of money, and now, somehow, if Obama is reelected they are going to have to lay off everyday workers to stay profitable?
Hmm. I think this is a load of crap.
Why?
Oh, because of the tens, if not hundreds of millions these men have spent on political campaigns. Instead of reinvesting it in their businesses, or keeping it for tougher times, no, its their money, they can do what they want, so they try and get friendly politicians elected.
But then, if things don't go their way, they cry, take their ball and go home, and make their workers suffer so that they can keep their huge incomes and replenish the spending cash for the next election cycle in four years.
Look, I understand that its hard to run a business in the US. We need to overhaul our corporate tax system and we need to streamline and improve our regulating processes. I am NOT anti-businessman especially since, as much as I despise their politics the Koch brothers at least own businesses that PRODUCE things unlike the Wall Street boys that just shift data in computers.
That said, the whole "I made mine if you don't like it go make your own" mentality of too many of the wealthy in this country is nauseating. Its selfish and its destructive. And if they somehow believe that threatening their employees is going to solve America's problems, well, good luck to them on that.
The blind, selfish, willful ignorance and hubris of so many wealthy people sickens me. Thanks Supreme Court for allowing these guys to try and buy election after election. That's certainly what the Founding Fathers you hold so dear envisioned that First Amendment being used for. Nice work.
This probably makes even less sense than most of my posts but I am sick and tired of the rich feeling every bit as entitled (to a far larger piece of the pie, in fact almost ALL the pie) as the poor they like to blame for all our problems.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Bullying
So, a chubby local newsperson gets an email from a buff lawyer ripping her about her weight.
Instead of doing what most people would do, ignoring the moron, she, in best local newsperson manner, decides to take it on air.
In a highly misguided statement she claims she is standing up for all the bullied people in the world. The kids who have to deal with being called fat, or short, or gay or whatever.
Ok, fine, except, no, you're not.
You were not bullied Ms. Livingston and you apparently don't have any idea what the word means.
To be bullied would mean you would be singled out, repeatedly, by one person, or a group, and humiliated, threatened, and/or mocked by those you are often in contact with.
Instead, you got one email from an idiot, some guy you don't know and never have to interact with.
Really, you're going to compare THAT to the kid getting mocked on the bus every day. To having his books pushed on the floor. To being picked on constantly by people he has to face, EVERY SINGLE DAY.
You don't even see how you trivialized bullying do you?
You honestly believe you were bullied and you were standing up for what's right.
You were wrong.
If it was a co-worker who everyday was making comments, then yes, that could easily be bullying.
But it wasn't, it was a random email from some schmuck.
So please, delete the email, suck it up and just go about your life.
Don't demean those who deal with bullying on a daily basis by comparing what they go through to an email from an idiot.
This is one more reason why local news should be banned. If there was no local news, there would be no local newspeople. Do you know what a boon this would be for not having crap TV?
Instead of doing what most people would do, ignoring the moron, she, in best local newsperson manner, decides to take it on air.
In a highly misguided statement she claims she is standing up for all the bullied people in the world. The kids who have to deal with being called fat, or short, or gay or whatever.
Ok, fine, except, no, you're not.
You were not bullied Ms. Livingston and you apparently don't have any idea what the word means.
To be bullied would mean you would be singled out, repeatedly, by one person, or a group, and humiliated, threatened, and/or mocked by those you are often in contact with.
Instead, you got one email from an idiot, some guy you don't know and never have to interact with.
Really, you're going to compare THAT to the kid getting mocked on the bus every day. To having his books pushed on the floor. To being picked on constantly by people he has to face, EVERY SINGLE DAY.
You don't even see how you trivialized bullying do you?
You honestly believe you were bullied and you were standing up for what's right.
You were wrong.
If it was a co-worker who everyday was making comments, then yes, that could easily be bullying.
But it wasn't, it was a random email from some schmuck.
So please, delete the email, suck it up and just go about your life.
Don't demean those who deal with bullying on a daily basis by comparing what they go through to an email from an idiot.
This is one more reason why local news should be banned. If there was no local news, there would be no local newspeople. Do you know what a boon this would be for not having crap TV?
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Racism
"Racism is not merely a simplistic hatred. It is, more often, broad sympathy toward some and broader skepticism toward others." -Ta-Nehisi Coates
Sorry America, that specter Racism is alive and well.
I know, I know, you don't want to admit it, but sorry, its true.
Its true in the little things you say, the little assumptions you make, the stereotypes you hold. Its there. You don't have to join the KKK, you don't have to call them N******, you don't have to do a lot of things, many racist attitudes are totally passive. Its about what you say, what you think, what you at heart believe.
Its funny how often I hear "well blacks can be racist too."
Ok, I agree, there is a certain percentage of the black population that is racist. They, like the vast majority of racist whites, veer towards the 2nd sentence of the quote.
There are racist black people, some of them as bad as any racist white.
BUT, before white folk get all justified in their own little prejudices, let me point something out, the blacks aren't the people in power.
WAIT you cry! White america is under attack! Look at all the benefits afforded minorities and women! Its so hard to be a white man!
No, its not.
White men still run this country. Pardon me, RICH white men run this country.
If you aren't one of them it isn't affirmative actions fault. It isn't NOW's fault. Its the oligarchy of good ol' boys and new money men who control most economic goings on in the US.
Here's the thing: People of all races suck. Basically humanity sucks. We're imperfect, we're flawed, we're damaged. BUT, when the group that holds power, and I'm sorry white america, you hold the power no matter how badly you want to believe you don't, holds ideas, prejudices (it can be proven, look at prison sentencing black v. white for the same crimes), hold beliefs, its far more damaging to the country than when the minority holds similar views.
This is NOT excusing minorities for any general "racist" beliefs they might hold. But, isn't it more understandable they would hold them when they are much more likely to be stopped and questioned by police (most often white), go to a lesser school than their white peers, and generally have the odds stacked against them?
Blacks in this country have had the deck stacked against them since the late 19th century. The gains made immediately after the Civil War, well, many of them died with Lincoln and others have been destroyed since, whether maliciously by blatantly racist laws or inadvertently by misguided social policy (see the Great Society, though, I sometimes wonder how inadvertent LBJ was really...).
We are generations deep, in all honestly we are almost 10 generations deep of black families being destroyed, first by slavery, then by economic factors, then by social engineering factors. Its unfortunate that so many black Americans have no idea how to live "normal," healthy lives.
I'm not even saying that they have to live like middle class Americans because frankly, I'm not sure that's healthy. But the violence that pervades so much of their culture, the lack of a father in too many young black men's lives (and anymore, that's certainly a white problem too), its tragic.
And while it does not excuse the eventual behavior, it helps to explain it. Instead of fearing, instead of holding prejudice, instead of viewing them as parasites (which so many people do, listen to how people talk, facts don't matter, there are millions on welfare doing nothing to support themselves....right..) maybe view them as fellow human beings. View them as fellow Americans, who just want to live their lives. Maybe you could support them, even third party, through groups trying to help the less fortunate.
White America, I'm sorry, but you're still horrifically racist. You need to start accepting that, because if you don't, if you, the majority race, don't, why on earth would any of the minority races attempt to do the same?
Sorry America, that specter Racism is alive and well.
I know, I know, you don't want to admit it, but sorry, its true.
Its true in the little things you say, the little assumptions you make, the stereotypes you hold. Its there. You don't have to join the KKK, you don't have to call them N******, you don't have to do a lot of things, many racist attitudes are totally passive. Its about what you say, what you think, what you at heart believe.
Its funny how often I hear "well blacks can be racist too."
Ok, I agree, there is a certain percentage of the black population that is racist. They, like the vast majority of racist whites, veer towards the 2nd sentence of the quote.
There are racist black people, some of them as bad as any racist white.
BUT, before white folk get all justified in their own little prejudices, let me point something out, the blacks aren't the people in power.
WAIT you cry! White america is under attack! Look at all the benefits afforded minorities and women! Its so hard to be a white man!
No, its not.
White men still run this country. Pardon me, RICH white men run this country.
If you aren't one of them it isn't affirmative actions fault. It isn't NOW's fault. Its the oligarchy of good ol' boys and new money men who control most economic goings on in the US.
Here's the thing: People of all races suck. Basically humanity sucks. We're imperfect, we're flawed, we're damaged. BUT, when the group that holds power, and I'm sorry white america, you hold the power no matter how badly you want to believe you don't, holds ideas, prejudices (it can be proven, look at prison sentencing black v. white for the same crimes), hold beliefs, its far more damaging to the country than when the minority holds similar views.
This is NOT excusing minorities for any general "racist" beliefs they might hold. But, isn't it more understandable they would hold them when they are much more likely to be stopped and questioned by police (most often white), go to a lesser school than their white peers, and generally have the odds stacked against them?
Blacks in this country have had the deck stacked against them since the late 19th century. The gains made immediately after the Civil War, well, many of them died with Lincoln and others have been destroyed since, whether maliciously by blatantly racist laws or inadvertently by misguided social policy (see the Great Society, though, I sometimes wonder how inadvertent LBJ was really...).
We are generations deep, in all honestly we are almost 10 generations deep of black families being destroyed, first by slavery, then by economic factors, then by social engineering factors. Its unfortunate that so many black Americans have no idea how to live "normal," healthy lives.
I'm not even saying that they have to live like middle class Americans because frankly, I'm not sure that's healthy. But the violence that pervades so much of their culture, the lack of a father in too many young black men's lives (and anymore, that's certainly a white problem too), its tragic.
And while it does not excuse the eventual behavior, it helps to explain it. Instead of fearing, instead of holding prejudice, instead of viewing them as parasites (which so many people do, listen to how people talk, facts don't matter, there are millions on welfare doing nothing to support themselves....right..) maybe view them as fellow human beings. View them as fellow Americans, who just want to live their lives. Maybe you could support them, even third party, through groups trying to help the less fortunate.
White America, I'm sorry, but you're still horrifically racist. You need to start accepting that, because if you don't, if you, the majority race, don't, why on earth would any of the minority races attempt to do the same?
Sunday, August 12, 2012
"[C]areer ambition was not to go to Washington"
Really Mitt? Really? You're saying a guy, who has worked essentially his WHOLE CAREER (except for a brief marketing consultant job at the family business to pad his resume for office) in Washington never had a career ambition there?
When exactly did he not have this ambition? When he was 8 and wanting to be a fireman or astronaut? Because by the time he was in college he was happily, even enthusiastically taking staffing jobs. His first job out of college was as a speechwriter for Jack Kemp. Yes, certainly seems like he didn't intend to work in Washington.
There are so many lies being thrown around by both sides its not even funny, but this one is pretty good. Mitt, admit it, you put Ryan on the ticket because you've never consistently stood for anything in your political career. Ryan was put there to give the conservatives peace of mind that you are a true believer, even when you're not in anything except Mitt.
Its interesting how Obama is called a socialist and communist (ignoring the fact the two are highly dissimilar) and its a bad thing. But Ryan, an avowed Objectivist, is somehow praised as a champion. Does the average person know anything about Objectivism? I'm thinking not.
Especially Christians because Objectivism is essentially anathema to the gospel of Christ though it is very much an American philosophy. (I have no idea of Mr. Paul's religious beliefs, but when the person who's philosophy you hold dear is summed up in this quote "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute [2]." that doesn't leave a lot of leeway for Christ's message.)
This not saying that Marx's writings were kind to religion. "Religion is the opiate of the masses" doesn't leave much room for it either, but some of the basic ideals of socialism are not that far from some of Christ's teachings either. (I am not saying Christ was a socialist, merely pointing out that his life and the life of the early church has far more in common with socialist and even, gasp, communal, ideals than anything Rand ever imagined.)
It boggles the mind that while bi-partisan and non-partisan groups publish report after report that Ryan's budget and Romney's tax plan would shift even MORE of the tax burden to the middle class (since its simply impossible to cut the amount needed) middle class and even lower class whites flock to the idea.
I guess the obvious solution to any problem is to burn down and start over right? Oh, and make sure the rich don't have too pay too much in taxes because keeping their taxes low does an excellent job of creating jobs for people in this country.
Good job guys!
(President Obama, I can't even begin to describe how angry I am at your administration for putting forth essentially no good ideas over the last few years to combat the lunacy of the far-right economic folks. Its pathetic really.)
When exactly did he not have this ambition? When he was 8 and wanting to be a fireman or astronaut? Because by the time he was in college he was happily, even enthusiastically taking staffing jobs. His first job out of college was as a speechwriter for Jack Kemp. Yes, certainly seems like he didn't intend to work in Washington.
There are so many lies being thrown around by both sides its not even funny, but this one is pretty good. Mitt, admit it, you put Ryan on the ticket because you've never consistently stood for anything in your political career. Ryan was put there to give the conservatives peace of mind that you are a true believer, even when you're not in anything except Mitt.
Its interesting how Obama is called a socialist and communist (ignoring the fact the two are highly dissimilar) and its a bad thing. But Ryan, an avowed Objectivist, is somehow praised as a champion. Does the average person know anything about Objectivism? I'm thinking not.
Especially Christians because Objectivism is essentially anathema to the gospel of Christ though it is very much an American philosophy. (I have no idea of Mr. Paul's religious beliefs, but when the person who's philosophy you hold dear is summed up in this quote "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute [2]." that doesn't leave a lot of leeway for Christ's message.)
This not saying that Marx's writings were kind to religion. "Religion is the opiate of the masses" doesn't leave much room for it either, but some of the basic ideals of socialism are not that far from some of Christ's teachings either. (I am not saying Christ was a socialist, merely pointing out that his life and the life of the early church has far more in common with socialist and even, gasp, communal, ideals than anything Rand ever imagined.)
It boggles the mind that while bi-partisan and non-partisan groups publish report after report that Ryan's budget and Romney's tax plan would shift even MORE of the tax burden to the middle class (since its simply impossible to cut the amount needed) middle class and even lower class whites flock to the idea.
I guess the obvious solution to any problem is to burn down and start over right? Oh, and make sure the rich don't have too pay too much in taxes because keeping their taxes low does an excellent job of creating jobs for people in this country.
Good job guys!
(President Obama, I can't even begin to describe how angry I am at your administration for putting forth essentially no good ideas over the last few years to combat the lunacy of the far-right economic folks. Its pathetic really.)
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Ah politics.
Representative Boehner, while talking on a Fox Radio show today made the statement concerning Obama that "He's never even had a real job for God's sake."
Now, I suppose Mr Boehner might not consider such things as being a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer, or a law professional real jobs, that's fine.
But what is absolutely hilarious about his statement is that Rep. Paul Ryan, the "mastermind" of the GOP's budget, actually NEVER has held a job outside of politics. He worked as a congressional staffer until he was approached about entering politics so he left being a staffer to work as a "marketing consultant" to his family's construction business briefly before running for office.
So, what would Mr. Boehner say about his fellow Congressman, who by Boehner's measuring stick must have actually held NEGATIVE jobs if Obama's jobs didn't count.
Its idiocy. The people in charge of both parties are idiots but I really really don't understand the Republican view of keeping the rich as rich as possible and somehow that will trickle down.
Oh well. Only a few more months until another 3 years of stagnant idiocy. *sigh*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)